|
|||||
|
Recently, I’ve been trying to harden up the implementation of Whiley’s type system. The reason for this is fairly straightforward: bugs in the code often prevent me from compiling correct programs! In thinking about how to restructure the algorithms I’m using, I realised its important to distinguish simplification from minimisation. I’ve talked about minimisation . . . → Read More: Simplification vs Minimisation of Types in Whiley An interesting and intuitive way of thinking about a type system is using a semantic interpretation. Typically, a set-theoretic model is used where a type T is a subtype of S iff every element in the set described by T is in the set described by S. The Semantic Model The starting point is . . . → Read More: A Semantic Interpretation of Types in Whiley I’ve been working hard over the last few weeks on the next release of Whiley, which should be out soon. However, I’ve got myself into a little bit of a pickle over the type system (again). I want the type system to be simple and easy to use, but at the same time efficient . . . → Read More: On the Duality of Types: the Ideals versus the Reals Recently, I came across an interesting problem with the type system I’m using in Whiley. Specifically, the problem relates to recursive types which are equivalent but not identical. Consider, for example, the following Whiley code: define Link as { int data, LinkedList next } define LinkedList as null | Link This is a fairly . . . → Read More: Normalising Recursive Data Types |
 |
||||
|
Copyright © 2012 David J. Pearce - All Rights Reserved 59 queries. 0.660 seconds. |
|||||
Popular Posts